If you don't have rich parents then college isn't going to cost you the equivalent of a home loan. Harvard, for instance, is free if your parents earn $65k or less. Some options:
1. Take a year's worth of intro classes at a junior college on the cheap; transfer them to your four-year university; only pay for three years in residence at the four-year university.
2. Work part-time while you're taking classes.
3. Work full-time during the summers.
4. Work every other semester if you're in a field that lends itself to paid internships.
5. Attend a university that's relatively inexpensive to begin with.
6. "Game" the PSAT (which is eminently "gameable"), get national merit, attend a university that gives free rides to national merit scholars.
7. Take out loans for whatever else is left, which shouldn't be all that much, or
8. If all else fails join the military and let Uncle Sam pay for it.
One corollary: get a degree that puts you in a position to land a job that will let you actually pay back your loan.
There is a hypothesis. Namely that observed increases in temperature over the post-industrial period are primarily attributable to increased atmospheric carbon levels caused by human activity. Implied by this hypothesis is the notion that whatever buffers exist (known or unknown) have thus far proven insufficient to counteract the increase in atmospheric carbon and/or the attendant increase in temperature. It is hypothesized that, in the absence of modifications to human activity, atmospheric carbon levels will continue to rise (i.e. there are no significant undiscovered buffering mechanisms) and global temperatures will follow.
So there's no length of time which, should atmospheric carbon continue to rise but temperatures remain constant, would give you cause to doubt the anthropogenic hypothesis. Does that mean the hypothesis isn't actually falsifiable?
If ten years is too short then what threshold of temperature change over what period of time (assuming a constant rate of increase in atmospheric carbon) would be sufficient to do damage to the hypothesis?
So, you'd respond that seven years (or ten years, depending on the period they claim) is simply too short a period to conclude that the assertion is incorrect. What threshold of temperature increase over what period of time (assuming a constant rate of increase in atmospheric carbon) would you consider sufficient to "do damage" to the AGW hypothesis?
Prior to the last decade or so, even those who disagreed with the AGW premise didn't make the claim that warming wasn't happening. Or, at least, they were forced to abandon it if they did. Recently, though, they've taken to claiming that warming has stalled. You're saying it hasn't. On what basis do they maintain that it has?
How about the right graph in Figure 3 here. It certainly seems to show a relatively flat period from approx. 2002-2012.
Couldn't the dissenters just respond, "You've asserted that atmospheric carbon is causative with global temperature increases. The last ten years contradict that assertion. The increase of atmospheric carbon has continued unabated even while temperatures have remained more-or-less flat."?
Macs are great for small businesses. Less malware prone than Windows (though Linux still wins here), built-in non-crappy warranty service at the Apple store (handy if you live near one), employees are familiar with them already, employes generally like working with them (free morale), and Time Machine is handy for automated backup. You can put graphic design, sales guys and developers all on the same platform, assuming you're not developing for Windows.
I'm not in favor of employers (or colleges) demanding login credentials, but this bill seems like a fairly hysterical reaction to what is, in all honesty, a pretty rare practice. Given the ubiquity of social networking is this not something the market can sort out? I know I'd walk right out the door if a potential employer ever demanded my credentials (or even that I friend them).
Alright. So if you buy from Amazon, then, you're buying in ignorance. I personally wouldn't assume, in the absence of information, that a eBook is DRM free. I'd be more likely to assume it the opposite and set my price requirements accordingly unless the publisher makes it clear there's no DRM.
You're trying to pretend that a media purchase in 2012 needs to be an inherently temporary one when recent history clearly demonstrates that such needs not to be the case.
Actually I'm pretending nothing of the sort. There is absolutely no technical reason a media purchase in 2012 need be inherently temporary. There may be market realities, however, that render completely open media less than optimally profitable for publishers. My point is that you're not "ripped off" when you buy DRM-laden media since you knew a priori that it was DRM-laden and still chose to buy it at the price being asked.
You are advocating the purchase of products that are priced as long lasting archival copies as if they are supposed to be very temporary rentals.
Again, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to your claim, "You would care very much if, in three years time, there are much better readers for a different platform." I said, "No I wouldn't. At least, not unless my media purchase was predicated on a bunch of false assumptions, such as the notion that it would be usable in perpetuity."
If something is "only temporary", it better be dirt cheap.
That is one type of consumer preference. Most folks either don't consider temporal limitations or, when they do, respond "meh". If more folks start thinking like you then the profitability equation will shift and the publishers may move to a tiered pricing structure or just offer everything with no limits (albeit at a higher price point). As an aside, another change that would shift the profit equation in favor of open media would be a decrease in illegal sharing. To the extent you want to see open media, you should be an ardent advocate against sharing (in place of buying).
If corporate abuse means "I pay less for an eBook" then, depending on the discount, I may be fine with it. They're selling a product (gimped, admittedly) at a price. If I don't think the price merits the product then I won't buy it. Obviously if there's a DRM-free eBook selling for the same price as a DRM-laden version that's locked into a single platform then I'm going to prefer the former.
You would care very much if in three years time, there are much better readers for a different platform.
Only if my original purchase was predicated on the assumption that no better readers would ever be developed, or that, should they appear, my purchase would be usable on those platforms. If, however, my original purchase was an informed one, i.e. made with a full realization that better platforms will likely appear at some point in the future and that my purchase won't be usable on them, then I wouldn't be particularly distressed when that came to pass.
Does that make sense? Basically the lack of future proofing affects how much I'm willing to pay for the product. Maybe I'm willing to pay slightly more for the DRM-free version since it's more future-proof. But if no DRM-free version exists and I look at the price of a non-future-proof eBook and still conclude it's worth buying then I'm not really justified in complaining when, in fact, it turns out not to be future-proof.
Don't know about you, but I'm fine with my media purchases having a usable lifespan of ~10-20 years. I don't have the expectation when purchasing physical media that it will remain usable in its current form for perpetuity. Books are somewhat of an exception to this rule, since there's no "format" to change. Then again, being physical media, books that are regularly used do tend to disintegrate over time.
In any case, time will tell whether there are enough people who feel as you do (i.e. place a large value on a lack of DRM) to offset those who, with the absence of DRM, will simply stop paying for product.
I was positing a future in which there is one dominant platform. A future in which, for all intents and purposes, *everybody* is a single-platform reader. At that point, cross-platform readability isn't really a selling point.
The article seemed to be suggesting that any loss in revenue due to the removal of DRM, i.e. book-sharing eating into legitimate purchases, would be offset by individuals being more likely to legitimately purchase eBooks because, sans DRM, they're a more attractive product. Because they work on multiple platforms. I'm just saying: if that is indeed the calculus at work here, then if the "multiple platforms" disappear then so does that boost to the attractiveness of DRM-free eBooks.
Note that if the profitability of removing DRM is dependent on eBooks being more attractive because they're able to be read on multiple devices then that profitability will disappear if one device begins to dominate the market. Why should I care if my eBook is multi-platform if I'm only ever going to read it on one platform?
I'm near 40 and feel like I'm generally more employable now than I was when I exited university. That said, as to the over/under predicament, it seems like there are very few "entry level" positions advertised. Nobody wants a "junior software developer"; they want "senior software developers". Maybe it's because I've primarily worked for small companies and startups. That said, I don't feel like these "senior developer" positions are that much more demanding or complex than the stuff I did when I was, in fact, a "junior developer".
One comment on work/life balance: I've never been expected to work more than 8 hours a day, ever, for any extended period of time. Have I had to work late nights when there was a deadline or a release? Sure. I've worked over some weekends, but very few. Then again, I don't work in the gaming industry and I'm not located in northern California. Maybe that makes the difference.
Note that athletics programs don't only contribute money. Some analysis here and here. This effect is probably even more pronounced at a mid-range state university like Florida. People would continue to go to Berkeley even if it had no football program. For a school like UF or FSU, though, losing that visibility probably costs you significantly in terms of student interest and quality of applicants.
Some will still make sense in the Math Dept. Other research might make sense in the engineering school. But yeah, there's some things that don't seem to fit into either of those.
So don't? Seriously. If a student needs a PC for personal use he can provide it himself. If he needs a license for a class then treat the cost as if it were a textbook. Negotiate an "educational rate" with the publisher and let the students bear the cost. Especially if it's that or "shut down the entire department."
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't have rich parents then college isn't going to cost you the equivalent of a home loan. Harvard, for instance, is free if your parents earn $65k or less. Some options:
1. Take a year's worth of intro classes at a junior college on the cheap; transfer them to your four-year university; only pay for three years in residence at the four-year university.
2. Work part-time while you're taking classes.
3. Work full-time during the summers.
4. Work every other semester if you're in a field that lends itself to paid internships.
5. Attend a university that's relatively inexpensive to begin with.
6. "Game" the PSAT (which is eminently "gameable"), get national merit, attend a university that gives free rides to national merit scholars.
7. Take out loans for whatever else is left, which shouldn't be all that much, or
8. If all else fails join the military and let Uncle Sam pay for it.
One corollary: get a degree that puts you in a position to land a job that will let you actually pay back your loan.
...count-down until someone in South Korea makes super-intelligent bonobos.
Apparently the F-35 is turning out to be rather crappy as well. Ooops.
There is a hypothesis. Namely that observed increases in temperature over the post-industrial period are primarily attributable to increased atmospheric carbon levels caused by human activity. Implied by this hypothesis is the notion that whatever buffers exist (known or unknown) have thus far proven insufficient to counteract the increase in atmospheric carbon and/or the attendant increase in temperature. It is hypothesized that, in the absence of modifications to human activity, atmospheric carbon levels will continue to rise (i.e. there are no significant undiscovered buffering mechanisms) and global temperatures will follow.
So there's no length of time which, should atmospheric carbon continue to rise but temperatures remain constant, would give you cause to doubt the anthropogenic hypothesis. Does that mean the hypothesis isn't actually falsifiable?
Same question to you as to Wulfrunner:
If ten years is too short then what threshold of temperature change over what period of time (assuming a constant rate of increase in atmospheric carbon) would be sufficient to do damage to the hypothesis?
So, you'd respond that seven years (or ten years, depending on the period they claim) is simply too short a period to conclude that the assertion is incorrect. What threshold of temperature increase over what period of time (assuming a constant rate of increase in atmospheric carbon) would you consider sufficient to "do damage" to the AGW hypothesis?
Prior to the last decade or so, even those who disagreed with the AGW premise didn't make the claim that warming wasn't happening. Or, at least, they were forced to abandon it if they did. Recently, though, they've taken to claiming that warming has stalled. You're saying it hasn't. On what basis do they maintain that it has?
How about the right graph in Figure 3 here. It certainly seems to show a relatively flat period from approx. 2002-2012.
And?
Couldn't the dissenters just respond, "You've asserted that atmospheric carbon is causative with global temperature increases. The last ten years contradict that assertion. The increase of atmospheric carbon has continued unabated even while temperatures have remained more-or-less flat."?
Macs are great for small businesses. Less malware prone than Windows (though Linux still wins here), built-in non-crappy warranty service at the Apple store (handy if you live near one), employees are familiar with them already, employes generally like working with them (free morale), and Time Machine is handy for automated backup. You can put graphic design, sales guys and developers all on the same platform, assuming you're not developing for Windows.
At which point I'd just cancel my FB account. Basically FB would cease to exist before it came to that point.
I'm not in favor of employers (or colleges) demanding login credentials, but this bill seems like a fairly hysterical reaction to what is, in all honesty, a pretty rare practice. Given the ubiquity of social networking is this not something the market can sort out? I know I'd walk right out the door if a potential employer ever demanded my credentials (or even that I friend them).
Alright. So if you buy from Amazon, then, you're buying in ignorance. I personally wouldn't assume, in the absence of information, that a eBook is DRM free. I'd be more likely to assume it the opposite and set my price requirements accordingly unless the publisher makes it clear there's no DRM.
Actually I'm pretending nothing of the sort. There is absolutely no technical reason a media purchase in 2012 need be inherently temporary. There may be market realities, however, that render completely open media less than optimally profitable for publishers. My point is that you're not "ripped off" when you buy DRM-laden media since you knew a priori that it was DRM-laden and still chose to buy it at the price being asked.
Again, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to your claim, "You would care very much if, in three years time, there are much better readers for a different platform." I said, "No I wouldn't. At least, not unless my media purchase was predicated on a bunch of false assumptions, such as the notion that it would be usable in perpetuity."
That is one type of consumer preference. Most folks either don't consider temporal limitations or, when they do, respond "meh". If more folks start thinking like you then the profitability equation will shift and the publishers may move to a tiered pricing structure or just offer everything with no limits (albeit at a higher price point). As an aside, another change that would shift the profit equation in favor of open media would be a decrease in illegal sharing. To the extent you want to see open media, you should be an ardent advocate against sharing (in place of buying).
If corporate abuse means "I pay less for an eBook" then, depending on the discount, I may be fine with it. They're selling a product (gimped, admittedly) at a price. If I don't think the price merits the product then I won't buy it. Obviously if there's a DRM-free eBook selling for the same price as a DRM-laden version that's locked into a single platform then I'm going to prefer the former.
Only if my original purchase was predicated on the assumption that no better readers would ever be developed, or that, should they appear, my purchase would be usable on those platforms. If, however, my original purchase was an informed one, i.e. made with a full realization that better platforms will likely appear at some point in the future and that my purchase won't be usable on them, then I wouldn't be particularly distressed when that came to pass.
Does that make sense? Basically the lack of future proofing affects how much I'm willing to pay for the product. Maybe I'm willing to pay slightly more for the DRM-free version since it's more future-proof. But if no DRM-free version exists and I look at the price of a non-future-proof eBook and still conclude it's worth buying then I'm not really justified in complaining when, in fact, it turns out not to be future-proof.
Don't know about you, but I'm fine with my media purchases having a usable lifespan of ~10-20 years. I don't have the expectation when purchasing physical media that it will remain usable in its current form for perpetuity. Books are somewhat of an exception to this rule, since there's no "format" to change. Then again, being physical media, books that are regularly used do tend to disintegrate over time.
In any case, time will tell whether there are enough people who feel as you do (i.e. place a large value on a lack of DRM) to offset those who, with the absence of DRM, will simply stop paying for product.
I was positing a future in which there is one dominant platform. A future in which, for all intents and purposes, *everybody* is a single-platform reader. At that point, cross-platform readability isn't really a selling point.
The article seemed to be suggesting that any loss in revenue due to the removal of DRM, i.e. book-sharing eating into legitimate purchases, would be offset by individuals being more likely to legitimately purchase eBooks because, sans DRM, they're a more attractive product. Because they work on multiple platforms. I'm just saying: if that is indeed the calculus at work here, then if the "multiple platforms" disappear then so does that boost to the attractiveness of DRM-free eBooks.
Note that if the profitability of removing DRM is dependent on eBooks being more attractive because they're able to be read on multiple devices then that profitability will disappear if one device begins to dominate the market. Why should I care if my eBook is multi-platform if I'm only ever going to read it on one platform?
I'm near 40 and feel like I'm generally more employable now than I was when I exited university. That said, as to the over/under predicament, it seems like there are very few "entry level" positions advertised. Nobody wants a "junior software developer"; they want "senior software developers". Maybe it's because I've primarily worked for small companies and startups. That said, I don't feel like these "senior developer" positions are that much more demanding or complex than the stuff I did when I was, in fact, a "junior developer".
One comment on work/life balance: I've never been expected to work more than 8 hours a day, ever, for any extended period of time. Have I had to work late nights when there was a deadline or a release? Sure. I've worked over some weekends, but very few. Then again, I don't work in the gaming industry and I'm not located in northern California. Maybe that makes the difference.
Note that athletics programs don't only contribute money. Some analysis here and here. This effect is probably even more pronounced at a mid-range state university like Florida. People would continue to go to Berkeley even if it had no football program. For a school like UF or FSU, though, losing that visibility probably costs you significantly in terms of student interest and quality of applicants.
Some will still make sense in the Math Dept. Other research might make sense in the engineering school. But yeah, there's some things that don't seem to fit into either of those.
So don't? Seriously. If a student needs a PC for personal use he can provide it himself. If he needs a license for a class then treat the cost as if it were a textbook. Negotiate an "educational rate" with the publisher and let the students bear the cost. Especially if it's that or "shut down the entire department."